DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/23/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/23/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For claims 1 and 11, for the newly added limitations, it is well known that impedance will change based on the magnitude of the input signal. In addition, the second part of the limitation stating “based on a difference between the bias of the first power amplifier and the bias of the second power amplifier” does not have any support in the specification, and the position of the applicant is not clear as to why these limitations were added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
While the issues from the previous office action were addressed and fixed, the remarks and new specification sheet state that par, 27, 35, and 39 should be corrected, when the correct paragraph numbers should be 26, 34, and 38.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 1 and 11, the limitation stating “based on a difference between the bias of the first power amplifier and the bias of the second power amplifier” does not have any support in the specification and is considered new matter. The paragraphs that are listed in the applicant’s remarks that supposedly show support for the new amendments don’t mention anything about a difference of bias levels of the first and second power amplifiers. Until it’s resolved, a further analysis is not possible. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, examiner is examining the claims up until the last limitation that states “based on a difference between the bias of the first power amplifier and the bias of the second power amplifier.” The dependent claims inherit this rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the issue of new matter and the limitations stated above make these two claims unclear and indefinite. Appropriate correction is required. The dependent claims inherit this rejection.
Regarding claim 21, it states that the first state is less than threshold and second state is greater than threshold. However, par. 129 of the specification states the opposite; it says that a first state is when the output power is greater than or equal to a threshold value and the second state is when the output power is less than the threshold value. This discrepancy makes the claim unclear and indefinite. Applicant also states in their remarks that support for this new claim can be found in par. 96 of the specification, however, examiner was unable to understand what exactly from this paragraph helped support the limitations in claim 21, as this paragraph talks about phase differences, which the claim does not mention. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claim 22 inherits this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US
20230198469 by Ladhani et al.
Regarding claim 1, Ladhani teaches a Doherty power amplifier in wireless communication system, comprising:
a first stage (Fig. 1 #110) including a first power amplifier (Fig. 1 #112) and a second power amplifier (Fig. 1 #114);
a second stage (Fig. 1 #120) including a third power amplifier (Fig. 1 #122) and a fourth power amplifier (Fig. 1 #124);
a coupler (Fig. 1 #104; Par. 18) between the first stage (#110) and the second stage (#120); and
a load impedance (Par. 21, 26) connected to the second stage (#120),
and wherein an impedance from the third power amplifier to the load impedance is changed in accordance with a magnitude of a signal input to the first stage (It’s well known in the art that impedance will change based on the magnitude of the input signal, as shown in par. 9 of US 20150155838 by Embar et al.).
Ladhani doesn't explicitly state the bias levels of the different amplifiers, however, different biasing levels are well known to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Teaching reference Lyalin has a Doherty amplifier system with a driver and output stage wherein a bias of the first power amplifier (Fig. 1 #116) is different (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 1-15) from a bias of the second power amplifier (Fig. 1 #136), and wherein a bias of the third power amplifier (Fig. 1 #120) corresponds (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 1-15) to a bias of the fourth power amplifier (Fig. 1 #140).
Regarding claim 2, Ladhani (and Lyalin) teach the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the first power amplifier comprises a power amplifier in which a bias is class-A or class-AB,
wherein the second power amplifier comprises a power amplifier in which a bias is class-B or class-C, and
wherein the third power amplifier comprises a power amplifier in which a bias is class-A, class-AB, or class-B. While Ladhani doesn't specify the class types of its amplifiers, biasing amplifiers in different classes is very well known to people having ordinary skill in the art as taught in Lyalin (Col. 6 lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 3, Ladhani teaches the Doherty power amplifier of one claim 1, wherein the coupler (Fig. 1 #104) includes a first port connected to an output end of the first power amplifier (#112), a second port connected to an output end of the second power amplifier (#114), a third port connected to an input end of the third power amplifier (#122), and a fourth port connected to an input end of the fourth power amplifier (#124).
While Ladhani's circuit has a three port coupler, this is due to the fact that the outputs of both driver amplifiers are combined into a single input for the coupler. Four port couplers are very well known in the art, as shown in Fig. 1-3b, 20, 21 of US 20040189381 by Louis, and it would have been easy to substitute a four port coupler into Ladhani's circuit and have the individual outputs feed into the coupler rather than combine.
Regarding claim 4, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the coupler comprises at least one of a coupled line coupler, a lange coupler, a hybrid coupler, or a ring hybrid coupler (Par. 18).
Regarding claim 5, Ladhani teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, and while a transmission line is not used to connect the coupler to the third amplifier, using transmission lines for phase delay is very well known in the art of Doherty amplifiers, as shown in fig. 21 #282 of US 20040189381 by Louis. Where the transmission line is implemented is simply a matter of design engineering based on where a phase delay is needed. Transmission lines can also help with impedance matching between stages and would be easy to incorporate into the teachings of Ladhani.
Regarding claim 6, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the Doherty power amplifier further comprises a combiner (Fig. 1 # 130; Par. 16), wherein the combiner (#130) is connected to an output end of the third power amplifier (Fig. 1 #122), an output end of the fourth power amplifier (Fig. 1 #124), and the load impedance (Par. 21, 26).
Regarding claim 7, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 6, wherein the combiner comprises at least one of:
a lumped element, a lumped element and a transmission line, 10 a transmission line, or a lumped element and a transformer (Par. 22).
Regarding claim 8, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of a first signal input to an input end of the third power amplifier corresponds to a magnitude of a second signal input to an input end of the fourth power amplifier (Par. 18).
Regarding claim 9, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the Doherty power amplifier further comprises a power splitter (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; see annotated drawing),
wherein the power splitter is connected to an input end of the first power amplifier (Fig. 2 #202) and an input end of the second power amplifier (Fig. 2 #204).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Lyalin teaches an electronic device in wireless communication system, comprising:
at least one processor (very well known in the art that electronic and amplifier circuits can have processors);
a plurality of antenna elements (Par. 21),
wherein the Doherty power amplifier comprises:
a first stage (Fig. 1 #110) including a first power amplifier (Fig. 1 #112) and a second power amplifier (Fig. 1 #114);
a second stage (Fig. 1 #120) including a third power amplifier (Fig. 1 #122) and a fourth power amplifier (Fig. 1 #124);
a coupler (Fig. 1 #104; Par. 18) between the first stage (#110) and the second stage (#120); and
a load impedance (Par. 21, 26) connected to the second stage (#120),
and wherein an impedance from the third power amplifier to the load impedance is changed in accordance with a magnitude of a signal input to the first stage (It’s well known in the art that impedance will change based on the magnitude of the input signal, as shown in par. 9 of US 20150155838 by Embar et al.).
Ladhani doesn't explicitly state the bias levels of the different amplifiers, however, different biasing levels are well known to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Teaching reference Lyalin teaches a Doherty amplifier system with a driver and output stage wherein a bias of the first power amplifier (Fig. 1 #116) is different (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 1-15) from a bias of the second power amplifier (Fig. 1 #136), and wherein a bias of the third power amplifier (Fig. 1 #120) corresponds (Abstract; Col. 2 lines 1-15) to a bias of the fourth power amplifier (Fig. 1 #140).
Ladhani also doesn't teach a plurality of radio frequency (RF) chains connected to the at least one processor and that the plurality of antennas (Ladhani Par. 21) are connected to the plurality of RF chains. However, this is very well known to those having ordinary skill in the art as shown in Fig. 16 of Lyalin and Col. 8 lines 53-59. The plurality of devices can facilitate multi-band operation and it would be easy to configure the Doherty amplifier circuit of Ladhani in this way.
Regarding claim 12, Ladhani (and Lyalin) teach the Doherty power amplifier of claim 11, wherein the first power amplifier comprises a power amplifier in which a bias is class-A or class-AB,
wherein the second power amplifier comprises a power amplifier in which a bias is class-B or class-C, and
wherein the third power amplifier comprises a power amplifier in which a bias is class-A, class-AB, or class-B. While Ladhani doesn't specify the class types of its amplifiers, biasing amplifiers in different classes is very well known to people having ordinary skill in the art as taught in Lyalin (Col. 6 lines 40-54).
Regarding claim 13, Ladhani teaches the Doherty power amplifier of one claim 11, wherein the coupler (Fig. 1 #104) includes a first port connected to an output end of the first power amplifier, a second port connected to an output end of the second power amplifier, a third port connected to an input end of the third power amplifier, and a fourth port connected to an input end of the fourth power amplifier.
While Ladhani’s circuit has a three port coupler, this is due to the fact that the outputs of both driver amplifiers are combined into a single input for the coupler. Four port couplers are very well known in the art, as shown in Fig. 1-3b, 20, 21 of US 20040189381 by Louis, and it would have been easy to substitute a four port coupler into Ladhani’s circuit and have the individual outputs feed into the coupler rather than combine.
Regarding claim 14, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the coupler comprises at least one of a coupled line coupler, a lange coupler, a hybrid coupler, or a ring hybrid coupler (Par. 18).
Regarding claim 15, Ladhani teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 11, and while a transmission line is not used to connect the coupler to the third amplifier, using transmission lines for phase delay is very well known in the art of Doherty amplifiers, as shown in fig. 21 #282 of US 20040189381 by Louis. Where the transmission line is implemented is simply a matter of design engineering based on where a phase delay is needed. Transmission lines can also help with impedance matching between stages and would be easy to incorporate into the teachings of Ladhani.
Regarding claim 16, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the Doherty power amplifier further comprises a combiner (Fig. 1 130; Par. 16), wherein the combiner (#130) is connected to an output end of the third power amplifier (Fig. 1 #122), an output end of the fourth power amplifier (Fig. 1 #124), and the load impedance (Par. 21, 26).
Regarding claim 17, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 6, wherein the combiner comprises at least one of:
a lumped element, a lumped element and a transmission line, 10 a transmission line, or a lumped element and a transformer (Par. 22).
Regarding claim 18, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of a first signal input to an input end of the third power amplifier corresponds to a magnitude of a second signal input to an input end of the fourth power amplifier (Par. 18).
Regarding claim 19, Ladhani (with Lyalin) teaches the Doherty power amplifier of claim 1, wherein the Doherty power amplifier further comprises a power splitter (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; see annotated drawing),
wherein the power splitter is connected to an input end of the first power amplifier (Fig. 2 #202) and an input end of the second power amplifier (Fig. 2 #204).
Regarding claim 21, it is well known in the art that the way Doherty amplifiers operate is by turning on the peaking amplifier once a certain threshold value is crossed and turning it off below said threshold value, as shown in par. 15 of US 20220416725 by van der Heijden et al.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230198480 by Jee et al. teaches a Doherty amplifier system where load impedance is affected by the magnitude of the input voltage.
US 20160164553 by Kurihara teaches a Doherty amplifier system where load impedance is varied in accordance with the magnitude of the input signal.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAREH SHAMIRYAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00AM-4:00PM PT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrea Lindgren-Baltzell can be reached at (571) 272-5918. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NAREH SHAMIRYAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
/ANDREA LINDGREN BALTZELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Prosecution Insights